The AMD Neo

[Bateluer]

AMD.com Product Brief

I just saw this over at FS, didn't see any Neo threads at AT CPU Forum when I searched.

My feelings are mixed. On one hand, it comes with a decent IGP and a fairly decent distrete chip, for its class. However, its on 65nm process and consumes 15W. Seems a bit high for a netbook class chip. Also, if it ships in April, shouldn't they be pushing it hard on the 45nm process? Good that they scored a design win, though at 699, its too expensive for me.

From FS:

AMD's answer to the burgeoning netbook market has arrived: Athlon Neo. As we've previously discussed, rather than targeting netbooks directly, AMD is setting their sights one peg higher, aiming to deliver notebooks that are more fully-fledged than netbooks built on a slightly higher form factor and price. Their first processor to address this segment, previously codenamed Huron (the platform as a whole was codenamed Yukon) has now been given a brand name: Athlon Neo.

With a 1.6GHz core clock, 65-nm manufacturing process, 64-bit support, 512KB L2 cache, and a single processing core, AMD's first Neo processor, the MV-40 consumes just 15W of juice. The Athlon Neo platform offers integrated Radeon X1250 graphics as well as an optional discrete GPU, the Mobility Radeon 3410. Already Athlon Neo has scored their first design win: HP's Pavilion dv2 ultrathin notebook. The dv2 comes equipped with a 12.1" 1280x800 LED-backlit display, Mobility Radeon 3410 graphics, HDD options ranging from 160GB-500GB, and Windows Vista Home Basic (with the option of Home Premium x64). The notebook weighs in at 3.8 pounds and is 0.9" thick.

The dv2 will start as low as $699 and will begin shipping in April.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

I am interested in the dual-core version (Conesus) coming out later this year.

 

[formulav8]

You can be sure this 1.6ghz Neo based cpu will be the crap out of a similar clocked Atom, although the thermals won't be as low as a atom would be. But I, "personally" would much rather have a great platform with higher thermals than that Intel Chipset/IGP trash.

Although Intel does have a big market with those people who want just something that works at a cheap price. I think i've seen low-end netbooks with atom cpu's at $399??

Just my opinion on a matter that I unfortunately won't be in the market for; at least for this year.


Jason

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Well see the dv2 has a discrete chip, so I suppose the price would be lower if it only used the x1250, which is already a huge step from the GMA 950 and even the X3100.

 

[soccerballtux]

I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

Isn't the 780G a two chip chipset? Possibly, the X1250 is a single-chip solution?

BTW, BestBuy was offering a $300 desktop PC, with LCD monitor, that had a 15W AMD64 single-core CPU in it, on BF. So these chips have been available in OEM channels for some months now already.

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

Sounds to me like they're trying to get rid of old product.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

I agree with you completely. The market for this kind of CPU is huge.

This product does not seem as though it was designed from the ground up as a notebook CPU, just like the rest of AMD's current lineup.

If it had been 45nm and dual core with an 8w or lower power requirment, it would have been useful. In its current state, it uses about 4x as much power as I think it should for this type of product. :thumbsdown:

 

[LOUISSSSS]

HP's Pavilion dv2 ultrathin notebook. The dv2 comes equipped with a 12.1" 1280x800 LED-backlit display, Mobility Radeon 3410 graphics, HDD options ranging from 160GB-500GB, and Windows Vista Home Basic (with the option of Home Premium x64). The notebook weighs in at 3.8 pounds and is 0.9" thick.

these are great specs. i'd be willing to pay more than double for these specs over any netbook on the market right now which i'd pay maximum 299 for. $699 is a tad on the high side for a single core 12in notebook, but at 500-600 i'm down! i actually dont really give a crap about the thermals and power consumption of the netbook if it has the speed of a 5-6 year old CPU.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

I agree with you completely. The market for this kind of CPU is huge.

This product does not seem as though it was designed from the ground up as a notebook CPU, just like the rest of AMD's current lineup.

If it had been 45nm and dual core with an 8w or lower power requirment, it would have been useful. In its current state, it uses about 4x as much power as I think it should for this type of product. :thumbsdown:

I could be wrong on this... but as impressive as the Atom is, isn't the chipset it's coupled with eat a lot of power and hurts the platform as a whole? From a platform perspective (not just isolating the CPU) wouldn't this AMD solution compete decently against Atom?

I'm really not up to speed on all the numbers on the netbook chips, so I could be wrong.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

I agree with you completely. The market for this kind of CPU is huge.

This product does not seem as though it was designed from the ground up as a notebook CPU, just like the rest of AMD's current lineup.

If it had been 45nm and dual core with an 8w or lower power requirment, it would have been useful. In its current state, it uses about 4x as much power as I think it should for this type of product. :thumbsdown:

I could be wrong on this... but as impressive as the Atom is, isn't the chipset it's coupled with eat a lot of power and hurts the platform as a whole? From a platform perspective (not just isolating the CPU) wouldn't this AMD solution compete decently against Atom?

I'm really not up to speed on all the numbers on the netbook chips, so I could be wrong.

Atom consumes 4w, and I'm pretty sure the chipset consumes 8w, for a total of 12.

This AMD chip consumes 16w, and I would assume that the chipset consumes at least 8w, for a total of 24w, which is double the power usage of the intel platform.

AMD really needs to work on their laptop chips. I think Fusion will be a big hit for them if they can ever get it released.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

I agree with you completely. The market for this kind of CPU is huge.

This product does not seem as though it was designed from the ground up as a notebook CPU, just like the rest of AMD's current lineup.

If it had been 45nm and dual core with an 8w or lower power requirment, it would have been useful. In its current state, it uses about 4x as much power as I think it should for this type of product. :thumbsdown:

I could be wrong on this... but as impressive as the Atom is, isn't the chipset it's coupled with eat a lot of power and hurts the platform as a whole? From a platform perspective (not just isolating the CPU) wouldn't this AMD solution compete decently against Atom?

I'm really not up to speed on all the numbers on the netbook chips, so I could be wrong.

Atom consumes 4w, and I'm pretty sure the chipset consumes 8w, for a total of 12.

This AMD chip consumes 16w, and I would assume that the chipset consumes at least 8w, for a total of 24w, which is double the power usage of the intel platform.

AMD really needs to work on their laptop chips. I think Fusion will be a big hit for them if they can ever get it released.

lets say your numbers are right on target. 24w draw isn't bad for a modern day LAPTOP COMPUTER with modern day technology. a laptop drawing 24w is = to the amount my philips energy efficient 7 yr lifespan light bulb uses.

if a 12 watt difference is what's holding people from buying a laptop with much better specs and capable of doing many more things, then maybe they should save some more $$ for that electricity bill

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

I agree with you completely. The market for this kind of CPU is huge.

This product does not seem as though it was designed from the ground up as a notebook CPU, just like the rest of AMD's current lineup.

If it had been 45nm and dual core with an 8w or lower power requirment, it would have been useful. In its current state, it uses about 4x as much power as I think it should for this type of product. :thumbsdown:

I could be wrong on this... but as impressive as the Atom is, isn't the chipset it's coupled with eat a lot of power and hurts the platform as a whole? From a platform perspective (not just isolating the CPU) wouldn't this AMD solution compete decently against Atom?

I'm really not up to speed on all the numbers on the netbook chips, so I could be wrong.

Atom consumes 4w, and I'm pretty sure the chipset consumes 8w, for a total of 12.

This AMD chip consumes 16w, and I would assume that the chipset consumes at least 8w, for a total of 24w, which is double the power usage of the intel platform.

AMD really needs to work on their laptop chips. I think Fusion will be a big hit for them if they can ever get it released.

lets say your numbers are right on target. 24w draw isn't bad for a modern day LAPTOP COMPUTER with modern day technology. a laptop drawing 24w is = to the amount my philips energy efficient 7 yr lifespan light bulb uses.

if a 12 watt difference is what's holding people from buying a laptop with much better specs and capable of doing many more things, then maybe they should save some more $$ for that electricity bill

It's got nothing to do with the electricity bill - it has to do with battery life!

If the AMD solution is indeed 100% faster than the Atom, then fine, I guess the additional power output is worth it. I think, however, that they have failed to realize that most people simply want a small and light laptop that can surf the internet and perform basic productivity tasks.

This new AMD chip has been done before, and IMO the C2D is a better processor.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Atom consumes 4w, and I'm pretty sure the chipset consumes 8w, for a total of 12.

Don't know about the chipset versions in the netbook, but the normal 945GC used on the Intel mini ITX boards consume around 30W.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Atom consumes 4w, and I'm pretty sure the chipset consumes 8w, for a total of 12.

Don't know about the chipset versions in the netbook, but the normal 945GC used on the Intel mini ITX boards consume around 30W.

Hmm you may be on to something.

This link shows the chipset power consumptions

It's saying that the intel 945 chipset uses 22w, whereas the AMD 780G uses 11w. The 945 southbridge uses 3w, and they don't have data for the 780G. Let's just consider them equal for this discussion.

If this data is indeed accurate, then this new AMD platform will use less energy than Atom + 945, and will be more than twice as fast. If this is true, then I will eat my words in my above posts, and I will probably purchase an AMD netbook.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Atom consumes 4w, and I'm pretty sure the chipset consumes 8w, for a total of 12.

Don't know about the chipset versions in the netbook, but the normal 945GC used on the Intel mini ITX boards consume around 30W.

Hmm you may be on to something.

This link shows the chipset power consumptions

It's saying that the intel 945 chipset uses 22w, whereas the AMD 780G uses 11w. The 945 southbridge uses 3w, and they don't have data for the 780G. Let's just consider them equal for this discussion.

If this data is indeed accurate, then this new AMD platform will use less energy than Atom + 945, and will be more than twice as fast. If this is true, then I will eat my words in my above posts, and I will probably purchase an AMD netbook.

Sure hope this is the case. However, the SFF mobo's at work use some integrated bus+video that gets no hotter than the Atom CPU itself. I don't think it's 945G.

I've always said, and still believe, this is where AMD can win. They just need to create a low enough power CPU, and a good enough GPU, and they've got my money when I buy a laptop. Intel has nothing with their integrated GPUs (which sucK).

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
If this data is indeed accurate, then this new AMD platform will use less energy than Atom + 945, and will be more than twice as fast. If this is true, then I will eat my words in my above posts, and I will probably purchase an AMD netbook.

The mobile 945 chipset uses a lot less power; a Dell 640m that I have with a Merom 1.73GHz idles at around 11-12W for the entire notebook with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth on and display set to minimum.

While running two threads of Prime 95 small FFT, notebook power consumption is around 25W. Undervolting to 0.95v drops the power consumption to under 19W.

 

[formulav8]

As much as I would like the 780 chipset in it as well, AMD had some reason not to right now.

Probably the main reasons is cost, availability, and consumption.

Just my minor thought on the matter.


Jason

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

I agree with you completely. The market for this kind of CPU is huge.

This product does not seem as though it was designed from the ground up as a notebook CPU, just like the rest of AMD's current lineup.

If it had been 45nm and dual core with an 8w or lower power requirment, it would have been useful. In its current state, it uses about 4x as much power as I think it should for this type of product. :thumbsdown:

I could be wrong on this... but as impressive as the Atom is, isn't the chipset it's coupled with eat a lot of power and hurts the platform as a whole? From a platform perspective (not just isolating the CPU) wouldn't this AMD solution compete decently against Atom?

I'm really not up to speed on all the numbers on the netbook chips, so I could be wrong.

Atom consumes 4w, and I'm pretty sure the chipset consumes 8w, for a total of 12.

This AMD chip consumes 16w, and I would assume that the chipset consumes at least 8w, for a total of 24w, which is double the power usage of the intel platform.

AMD really needs to work on their laptop chips. I think Fusion will be a big hit for them if they can ever get it released.

unfortunatley your numbers are wrong.

the atom 230 is 8watts tdp. the 945gc is i think up to 22 watts, and the ich7 is another 5 watts or so at load. Some netbooks use the 945gse which uses something like 6 watts though... (its video is 1/3 the speed too )

the new atom z530 and poulsbo chipset are a lot better, but all the netbooks out right now do not use that yet.


if the 690T is the same as the 740G desktop chipset (which is a 55nm 690g) then it was teh right choice at it is the lowest power desktop chipset for amd. with cool and quiet and mostly non load usage the athlon neo (which is just a 65nm single core athlon 64 sparta probably) and 740G basically, should be pretty competitive.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I liked this article a lot:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...-ultra-thin-platform/1

Very illuminating-- and they bring up a good point, why didn't they put this on the 780G and just be done with it? Smells like bad management. AMD needs to shape up. Badly.
This processor is too little too late, as well. Needs to be dual core.

I agree with you completely. The market for this kind of CPU is huge.

This product does not seem as though it was designed from the ground up as a notebook CPU, just like the rest of AMD's current lineup.

If it had been 45nm and dual core with an 8w or lower power requirment, it would have been useful. In its current state, it uses about 4x as much power as I think it should for this type of product. :thumbsdown:

I could be wrong on this... but as impressive as the Atom is, isn't the chipset it's coupled with eat a lot of power and hurts the platform as a whole? From a platform perspective (not just isolating the CPU) wouldn't this AMD solution compete decently against Atom?

I'm really not up to speed on all the numbers on the netbook chips, so I could be wrong.

Atom consumes 4w, and I'm pretty sure the chipset consumes 8w, for a total of 12.

This AMD chip consumes 16w, and I would assume that the chipset consumes at least 8w, for a total of 24w, which is double the power usage of the intel platform.

AMD really needs to work on their laptop chips. I think Fusion will be a big hit for them if they can ever get it released.

lets say your numbers are right on target. 24w draw isn't bad for a modern day LAPTOP COMPUTER with modern day technology. a laptop drawing 24w is = to the amount my philips energy efficient 7 yr lifespan light bulb uses.

if a 12 watt difference is what's holding people from buying a laptop with much better specs and capable of doing many more things, then maybe they should save some more $$ for that electricity bill

My old Thinkpad X41T with a 1.5Ghz ULV Pentium M and GMA900 graphics consumes ~15W while idling, ~20W while under load. I got it in 2005. The cpu is 90nm. Those power numbers I just gave are for the entire laptop, including screen. The laptop cost around $1800 at the time though, but I've still yet to see anything from the ultra portable crowd that makes me want to replace it.
Try harder AMD. Come out with an ULV Athlon 64 that uses under 10W, I know it can be done, I underclocked and undervolted 90nm Athlon 64s to that level.
Also, 780g should be standard on these laptops. It has ridiculously low power usage while idling anyway (1-2W) and acceptable power use under load (~10W). If AMD could do that, they'd have something comparable to my nearly 4 year old laptop in power consumption, with a decently more powerful cpu, and a way more powerful graphics chip.

This new HP laptop isn't very impressive. For as much power as it uses, it really needs to be either cheaper or more powerful to entice me.

 

[IntelUser2000]

the atom 230 is 8watts tdp. the 945gc is i think up to 22 watts, and the ich7 is another 5 watts or so at load. Some netbooks use the 945gse which uses something like 6 watts though... (its video is 1/3 the speed too )

Get your facts straight please.

The Dual Core Atom 330 is 8W TDP. The Atom N270 used in quite a few netbooks are rated at 2.5W. AMD solutions also use southbridge.

The 945GSE isn't that slow either. The 945GM is at 250MHz and the lowest variant of 945G is at 133MHz. But however these IGPs aren't limited by the fillrate. Simple 3dmark2001 benchmark showed that 50% reduction in clock resulted in only 20-30% reduction(70% of performance).

My old Thinkpad X41T with a 1.5Ghz ULV Pentium M and GMA900 graphics consumes ~15W while idling, ~20W while under load. I got it in 2005. The cpu is 90nm. Those power numbers I just gave are for the entire laptop, including screen.

You can't compare TDP values with actual usage. Overwhelming majority of cases the power consumption does not reach TDP values.

Your CPU and the GMA900 chip is less powerful than the CPU and the GPU on the new Yukon platform. The CPU in the Neo platform is a Athlon 64 derivative core. The base Athlon 64s perform better than the Pentium M's per clock. There will probably be minute advantage with the 1.6GHz CPU in the Yukon.

And don't compare GMA900 with the IGP in the Neo...

Another thing is the price. You aren't paying $1800 for this. You are paying $700 for it.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

the atom 230 is 8watts tdp. the 945gc is i think up to 22 watts, and the ich7 is another 5 watts or so at load. Some netbooks use the 945gse which uses something like 6 watts though... (its video is 1/3 the speed too )

Get your facts straight please.

The Dual Core Atom 330 is 8W TDP. The Atom N270 used in quite a few netbooks are rated at 2.5W. AMD solutions also use southbridge.

The 945GSE isn't that slow either. The 945GM is at 250MHz and the lowest variant of 945G is at 133MHz. But however these IGPs aren't limited by the fillrate. Simple 3dmark2001 benchmark showed that 50% reduction in clock resulted in only 20-30% reduction(70% of performance).

My old Thinkpad X41T with a 1.5Ghz ULV Pentium M and GMA900 graphics consumes ~15W while idling, ~20W while under load. I got it in 2005. The cpu is 90nm. Those power numbers I just gave are for the entire laptop, including screen.

You can't compare TDP values with actual usage. Overwhelming majority of cases the power consumption does not reach TDP values.

Your CPU and the GMA900 chip is less powerful than the CPU and the GPU on the new Yukon platform. The CPU in the Neo platform is a Athlon 64 derivative core. The base Athlon 64s perform better than the Pentium M's per clock. There will probably be minute advantage with the 1.6GHz CPU in the Yukon.

And don't compare GMA900 with the IGP in the Neo...

Another thing is the price. You aren't paying $1800 for this. You are paying $700 for it.

And 4 years time difference. You'd think after 4 years, the same thing could be achieved for cheaper.
The 1.6Ghz Athlon 64 is more powerful, in some things it will be substantially more powerful than the 1.5Ghz Pentium M. Perhaps AMD is aiming too high with the power then, maybe a 1.2Ghz Athlon 64 would be sufficient and use less power.

The 945G might be limited by vertex performance. The 945G uses software emulated vertex shaders, right?
Then again, I think the X1250 also uses software emulated vertex shaders. It's a bit beefier in pixel shader performance though, and the Athlon 64 way beefier in floating point performance. Still, the X1250 is the Intel integrated graphics of the AMD world, slow as heck. Better is a subjective term for something that's just barely capable of playing Unreal Tournament (the original) with maxed settings and resolution.

Hardware pixel and vertex shaders were talked about as the death of the need for a high end cpu back in the day. And they work. Why equip low end cpus with graphics cards that don't provide at least that functionality? (well...some of the low end gpus are actually outperformed by software vertex emulation.

 

[boatillo]

OMGZOR my NEO! (matrix ftw) is 1.367x as powerful as your lowly Atom and uses ....ah forget it.

I saw an Asus eeePC for $279 at Bestbuy over the holidays, great specs but only a lowly 4GB SSD with a linux variant. There have been similar deals on the MSI Wind and Asus 1000HA with cashback from microsoft recently. I picked up a Dell Mini 9 with the 16GB Intel SSD for $380 on eBay and its awesome. Installed a slipstreamed and nlited XP Pro SP3 on it, ~700mb, and it runs any 2D task I can throw at it without a hiccup, Photoshop, entire Office 2007, webcam, browsing, ftps to webservers, it does it all just as well as my desktop. Get off your silly high-horses about computing power, who needs to do 4 different tasks simultaneously on a 8.9" screen???? I've got battery life and all the software apps I use. Only one thing needs help, the integrated graphics, although they run D2:LOD and Fate UR without a problem when I wanna waste some time, and there is always bejeweled for the wife.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Fox5

And 4 years time difference. You'd think after 4 years, the same thing could be achieved for cheaper.
The 1.6Ghz Athlon 64 is more powerful, in some things it will be substantially more powerful than the 1.5Ghz Pentium M. Perhaps AMD is aiming too high with the power then, maybe a 1.2Ghz Athlon 64 would be sufficient and use less power.

In defense of AMD, the reason for 1.6GHz Neo is the power consumption. It is one of the most low power chips they have.

The problem is of course the market they are targeting at.

At the high-end Intel has the Core 2. At the high-end low power they have Core 2 LV/ULV with lower TDP than the Neo but expensive. At the low end they have the Atom Netbooks, and at the ultra portable low-end they have the Atom Z series.

So what is Neo and Yukon?? It's between the Atom Netbooks and the Core 2 LV/ULV. If you think optimistically you can say they get the best of both. Cheaper than Core 2 but higher performing than Atom.